Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T22:58:17.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of environmental stimuli on nursing and suckling behaviour in domestic sows and piglets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

M. S. Herskin ,
K. H. Jensen  and
K. Thodberg
M. S. Herskin
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Health and Welfare, Research Centre Foulum, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
K. H. Jensen
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Health and Welfare, Research Centre Foulum, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
K. Thodberg
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Health and Welfare, Research Centre Foulum, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
Get access

Abstract

The influence of environmental stimuli considered biologically relevant for nest building sows, on nursing and suckling behaviour and piglet growth was investigated. Effects of floor type (beach sand v. concrete) and substrate type (straw feeder v. no straw feeder) were examined in a 2 × 2 factorial experiment with nine replicates of four multiparous sows. The sows were kept individually in roofed 7·6 m2 ‘get-aw ay-pens’ from 1 week pre-partum until 13 to 15 days post-partum. The behaviour of sows and piglets were video recorded for 24 h on days 0, 3, 6 and 12 post-partum.

The latency from termination of farrowing until perceptible milk ejection tended to be shorter for experienced sows (parity 4 to 5) kept on sand than on concrete floors (1207 (s.e. 109) min; no. = 7 v. 1725 (s.e. 123) min; no. = 6, respectively; F2,8 = 3·93, P < 0·07) and for experienced sows with access to a straw feeder than without access to a straw feeder (1257 (s.e. 113) min; no. = 8 v. 1666 (s.e. 132) min; no. = 5, respectively; F2,8 = 3·56, P < 0·08). On days 3 and 6 a longer duration of suckling was found for sows on sand v. concrete floors (384 (s.e. 20) v. 327 (s.e. 16) s on day 3; F1,19 = 5·6, P < 0.03 and 377 (s.e. 14) v. 318 (s.e. 13) on day 6; F1,21 = 9·09; P < 0·01, respectively) and with straw feeder v. without straw feeder (385 (s.e. 20) v. 326 (s.e. 18) s on day 3; F1,19 = 5·11, P < 0.04 and 372 (s.e. 14) v. 323 (s.e. 13) on day 6; F1,21 = 6·21; P < 0·03, respectively). On day 3, a tendency for a sand × straw feeder interaction (F11,8 = 3·58, P < 0.08), showed that sows without environmental stimuli terminated more sucklings than sows with access to a straw feeder and sows kept on sand (32 (s.e. 7) %, 16 (s.e. 4) % and 13 (s.e. 5) %, respectively). Similarly, on day 6 a significant sand × straw feeder interaction (F316 = 7·15, P < 0·01) led to increased frequency of foreleg rowing for sows without environmental stimuli compared with the three other treatments (14 (s.e. 2) v. 7 (s.e. 1), 5 (s.e. 1) and 6 (s.e. 1) foreleg rowings per h, respectively). During the stay in the experimental pens, the growth rate of piglets kept on sand tended to be higher than for piglets kept on concrete floors (261 (s.e. 33) v. 240 (s.e. 30) g per piglet per day; F1,25 = 3·38; P < 0·08).

The results of the present experiment indicate that provision of biologically relevant stimuli affect the nursing and suckling behaviour of sows and piglets. The reduced termination of sucklings, the reduced frequency of foreleg rowing, the increased duration of suckling as well as the earlier development of suckling behaviour might have been advantageous for the early milk intake of the piglets.

Keywords

maternal behaviourmotivationnest buildingsows
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 68 , Issue 1 , February 1999 , pp. 27 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Algers, B. 1993. Nursing in pigs: communicating needs and distributing resources. Journal of Animal Science 71: 2826–2831.Google Scholar
Algers, B. and Jensen, P. 1991. Teat stimulation and milk production during early lactation in sows: effects of continuous noise. Canadian journal of Animal Science 71: 51–60.Google Scholar
Arey, D. S., Petchey, A. M. and Fowler, V. R. 1991. The preparturient behaviour of sows in enriched pens and the effect of a pre-formed nest. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31: 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, J. L., Hemsworth, P. H. and Winfield, C. G. 1987. The effects of design of individual stalls on the social behaviour and physiological responses related to the welfare of pregnant pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18: 133–142.Google Scholar
Castren, H., Algers, B. and Jensen, P. 1989. Occurrence of unsuccesful sucklings in newborn piglets in a semi-natural environment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23: 61–73.Google Scholar
Castrén, H., Algers, B., Pasillé, A. M. de, Rushen, J. and Uvnäs-Moberg, K. 1993. Early milk ejection, prolonged parturition and periparturient oxytocin release in the pig. Animal Production 57: 465–471.Google Scholar
Cronin, G. M. and Smith, J. A. 1992a. Suckling behaviour of sows in farrowing crates and straw-bedded pens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33: 175–189.Google Scholar
Cronin, G. M. and Smith, J. A. 1992b. Effects of accomodation type and straw bedding around parturition and during lactation on the behaviour of primiparous sows and survival and growth of piglets to weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33: 191–208.Google Scholar
Dyck, G. W. and Swierstra, E. E. 1987. Causes of piglet death from birth to weaning. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67: 543–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellendorff, F., Forsling, M. L. and Poulain, D. A. 1982. The milk ejection reflex in the pig. Journal of Physiology 333: 577–594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
English, P. R., Dias, M. F. M. and Bampton, P. R. 1982. Evaluation of an improved design of farrowing crate, incorporating a farrowing cradle, designed to reduce the incidence of overlying of newly born piglets. International Pig Veterinary Society Congress, Mexico, p. 308.Google Scholar
English, P. R. and Morrison, V. 1984. Causes and prevention of piglet mortality. Pig News and Information 5: 369–376.Google Scholar
Fraser, D. 1975. The effect of straw on the behaviour of sows in tether stalls. Animal Production 21: 59–68.Google Scholar
Fraser, D. 1976. The nursing posture of domestic sows and related behaviour. Behaviour 57: 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D. 1977. Some behavioural aspects of milk ejection failure by sows. British Veterinary Journal 133: 126–133.Google Scholar
Fraser, D. 1990. Behavioural perspectives on piglet survival. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility, Supplement 40: 355–370.Google ScholarPubMed
Herskin, M. S., Jensen, K. H. and Thodberg, K. 1998. Influence of environmental stimuli on maternal behaviour related to bonding, reactivity and crushing of piglets in domestic sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58: 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illmann, G. and Madlafousek, J. 1995. Occurrence and characteristics of unsuccessful nursings in minipigs during the first week of life. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, D. L. 1981. Physiology and behaviour of young pigs in relation to the environment. In The welfare of pigs (ed. Sybesma, W.), pp. 33–45. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. 1988. Maternal behaviour of free-ranging domestic pigs. I. Results of a 3-year study. Report no. 22, Department of Animal Hygiene, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Swedish University of Agricultural Science.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. 1989. Nest site choice and nest building of free ranging domestic pigs due to farrow. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 13–21.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. 1993. Nestbuilding in domestic sows: the role of external stimuli. Animal Behaviour 45: 351–358.Google Scholar
Jensen, P., Stangel, G. and Algers, B. 1991. Nursing and suckling behaviour of semi-naturally kept pigs during the first 10 days postpartum. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31: 195–209.Google Scholar
Kalbfleisch, J. D. and Prentice, R. L. 1980. The statistical analysis of failure time data. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Newberry, R. C. and Wood-Gush, D. G. M. 1985. The suckling behaviour of domestic pigs in a semi-natural environment. Behaviour 95: 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasillé, A. M. B. de and Rushen, J. 1989a. Suckling and teat disputes by neonatal piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 23–38.Google Scholar
Pasillé, A. M. B. de and Rushen, J. 1989b. Using early suckling behaviour and weight gain to identify piglets at risk. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 69: 535–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petherick, J. C., Seawright, E. and Waddington, D. 1993. Influence of motivational state on choice of food or a dustbathing/foraging substrate by domestic hens. Behavioural Processes 28: 209–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute, 1995. SAS/STAT user guide, version 6.11. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Thodberg, K. Jensen, K. H., Herskin, M. S. and Jørgensen, E. 1998.a Influence of environmental stimuli on nest building and farrowing behaviour in domestic sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science In press.Google Scholar
Whatson, T. S. and Bertram, J. M. 1980. A comparison of incomplete nursings in the sow in two environments. Animal Production 30: 105–114.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. and Fraser, D. 1974. The nursing and suckling behaviour of pigs. II. Vocalization of the sow in relation to suckling behaviour and milk ejection. British Veterinary Journal 130: 346–356.Google Scholar
Widowski, T. M. and Curtis, S. E. 1990. The influence of straw, cloth tassel or both on the prepartum behaviour of sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 53–71.Google Scholar